I've prepared and uploaded an NMU to fix this problem. The patch for this NMU is attached.
I did not use the proposed form that comes from debhelper; although it's resilient against changes to update-menu's path, it is not resilient against problems with using the "which" command, and there seem to be some concerns about whether "which" is the appropriate method to use. The debhelper method also seems to be in the minority when looking at all packages on my system that call update-menus from the postinst. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
diff -u xodo-1.2/debian/postinst xodo-1.2/debian/postinst --- xodo-1.2/debian/postinst +++ xodo-1.2/debian/postinst @@ -7,5 +7,7 @@ fi - if command -v update-menus >/dev/null 2>&1; then update-menus; fi + if [ -x /usr/bin/update-menus ]; then + update-menus + fi fi diff -u xodo-1.2/debian/changelog xodo-1.2/debian/changelog --- xodo-1.2/debian/changelog +++ xodo-1.2/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +xodo (1.2-9.2) unstable; urgency=high + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * High-urgency upload for sarge-targetted RC bugfix. + * Use [ -x /usr/bin/update-menus ] instead of command -v update-menus + to check whether we can call this program, as per the interface + actually provided by the menu package (closes: #289732). + + -- Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:59:23 -0800 + xodo (1.2-9.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload, bug squashing party. diff -u xodo-1.2/debian/postrm xodo-1.2/debian/postrm --- xodo-1.2/debian/postrm +++ xodo-1.2/debian/postrm @@ -3 +3,3 @@ -if command -v update-menus >/dev/null 2>&1; then update-menus; fi +if [ -x /usr/bin/update-menus ]; then + update-menus +fi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
